See this before you inhale the monkey gas.

Bear in mind that many of us Republicans are sportsmen and frankly, there is no better friend of the environment than someone who hunts and fishes. It really sucks when the acid rain kills all the native browns in the Battenkill, if you know what I mean.

Sorry about your untimely exit. Maybe you can share your eminence with us another time, eh? I’ve learned so much today!

I imagine by your next appearance you’ll have Michael Moore’s conspiracy theories down better than you do now.

I’m off to junior college now so I learn not how to make fallacies like: ad hominems, tu quoques, appeals to authority, appeals to emotion, non-sequiturs, invalid syllogisms, bandwagons and question-beggings.

I guess I’m just another poor dumb, linear-thinking rightwing nutjob who can’t put subject and predicate together. Silly me.

Bill Ford’s job is to make the company profitable. He’s been criticized by both automakers and environmentalists for doing both too much and too litle. And his statement that auto emissions are causing global warming are as dumb as Reagan saying pollution was caused by trees.

One small volcanic eruption puts more greenhouse gas in the atmosphere than anything man has done for the last decade.

As for the polar ice caps, the Antarctica ice sheet is getting bigger.

Good night, girls. Gotta go.

I’m reading slowly, but it isn’t helping. You implied goods coming in from China amounted to “happy cash.” Geez, I thought that trade worked two ways: you know, we sell the Chinese things and they sell us stuff too. Isn’t the cash “happy” both ways? Moreover, in what way are fungible trade dollars tied to anything having to do with U.S. fiscal policy? I’m trying to understand, honest, but this doesn’t make any sense at all.

Now then, I’m sure you would like to assign certain borrowings to programs you don’t like, and certain shortfalls to programs you do like for political purposes. But money doesn’t work that way; it’s fungible. I am not particularly happy with Congress myself, especially with the expanded Medicare benefit. But implying we need to raise taxes to pay for a certain program is silly insofar as the money doesn’t attach itself to anything. Your comments imply there are “good” taxes for popular programs and “bad” taxes for…(I’m going to fill this in for you now) illegal wars. In reality, there is only income and outgo.

Your “#1 debtor” argument is silly, given that we are by far the world’s largest economy we are far better able to handle future debt payments.

If Iraq was all about oil, then answer the following questions: (1) Where the hell is it? Shouldn’t it just be flooding into this country on CIA-flagged supertankers to the Chimpy McBu$hitler offloading stations in Florida? (2) If we just wanted cheap oil why wouldn’t we push for ending the sanctions on Saddam? It would have been a fair easier and cheaper way to accomplish the same thing, and we could have extracted a ton of leverage in the process. (For that matter, we could have invaded Venezuela, which has a weaker military and better food.) (3) If all this oil is so valuable, can you tell me how it’s being diverted to our shores without anyone noticing? (4) Why did we spend in excess of $100 billion repairing the country? Seems a funny way to plunder a country, doesn’t it? (5) Why are gas prices so high with this newfound pipeline of Iraqi oil pouring into America’s SUVs?

You may have a point about the national debt, though you make it ineptly, and I disagree with your conclusion.

But as for this “blood for oil” nonsense, you have no argument at all, because there are no facts AND no logic to support it.